About your Search

20121116
20121116
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
. the claim has not been verified. john bolton is here. good evening, sir. >> good evening. >> greta: first, your overall thought about what transpired on capitol hill, in terms of the release behind closed doors today? >> well, i think the most interesting testimony that has leaked out -- do i have faith the rest of it will leak out in due course, is that the director of national intelligence and the acting cia director would not say where the talking points that susan rice used on those famous five sunday shows came from. so the notion that somehow or another, this was all supplied to her by the intelligence community, i think is now in question. the real is did the white house write the talking points to suit their ideology, to suit their political imperatives, where did all of that come from? and that, i think, is going to be the focus of a lot of the inquiry with director petraeus tomorrow. >> greta: one of the things that is curious to me, and i am total oat outside, but having tried cases. have you to keep secret. some things on capitol hill have to be secret because it's classified.
on john bolton, his ambassador to the united nations? [laughter] >> right. discrimination against men with moustaches. [laughter] it is so absurd, and the president gets away with it, frankly, because we let him get away with it. there was ed henry of fox news, a couple other people trying to ask some hard questions, but he just swept them aside, and that format is death for getting to the bottom of an affair. that's why we really do need to know in detail, either a select committee or some other venue, what the administration has said about what happened in benghazi that night, whether or not they were attempting to mislead the american people about what happened to make their re-election more likely. i mean, these are questions that are not going to go away even though the administration would like them to go away. jon: yeah. because if susan rice wasn't connected at all to the benghazi incident, why did they put her on the sunday morning shows? >> right. that's an obvious question. [laughter] it's such an obvious question. and, look, i also don't understand why the media -- if i wa
that out. but again, that has to be pursued. megyn: joining me now, ambassador john bolton. former u.s. ambassador to the united nations. that full interview is going to air today at 2:30 p.m. your thoughts to peter king's statements right there? >> i think he has put his finger on the key issue. i think that general petraeus and his testimony today has put this right on the doorstep. i don't think there's any doubt. at least there is a working hypothesis. maybe not a firm conclusion, that the only entity in washington that believes in the demonstration was the white house. general david petraeus said that he knew within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack. he said that he was trying to convey that position in his congressional testimony of september 14. he apparently didn't. but the key point is he thought that he was being consistent. somehow between then and when white house spokesman jay carney spoke, susan rice goes on television on the 16, it goes 180 degrees away from the notion of a terrorist attack towards the demonstration. in an interagency practice, let me just say th
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)